[freeroleplay] Re: [Fwd: Free-Content Licensing of FUDGE]
- From: Samuel Penn <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: freeroleplay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 18:53:53 +0000
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 18:18, Ricardo Gladwell wrote:
> Samuel Penn wrote:
> > On Wednesday 08 December 2004 16:07, Ricardo Gladwell wrote:
> >>I don't actually think difficult to read HTML is considered Transparent
> >>by the FDL: I believe the FDL does not allow you to distribute, for
> >>example, the obfuscated HTML exported from MS word. I think clarity is a
> >>requirement for a Transparent copy.
> >
> > I'm not talking about obfuscated HTML. 90%+ of the HTML out there
> > hasn't been obfuscated, but is difficult to parse automatically.
> > Even 'clean' HTML can be difficult to parse if you want to go from
> > presentation markup to content markup. Plain text can have similar
> > problems.
>
> "Opaque formats include... the machine-generated HTML, PostScript or PDF
> produced by some word processors for output purposes only."
The thing is, if it's not in the same format as that of the original
author, then effort is needed to get it back into that format if the
original author wants to merge the changes back into his version.
And often, it's either easy to do or difficult to do, regardless of
how transparent it is. MS Word or obfuscated HTML can both be converted
to plain text relatively easily, at which point they become no harder
to convert than plain text.
TeX is probably considered transparent, but getting that into some
other format probably isn't going to be any easier than MS Word.
How about nroff? Docbook is very badly designed in places and leads
to totally unreadable markup (which is why I decided not to use it
even for technical documentation).
> > It's only when you start looking at XHTML that things start becoming
> > sensible, and there's very little out there that will produce proper
> > XHTML.
>
> OO.org does ;)
Admittedly I haven't used OO much (I'm not that much of a fan of it),
so have never tried.=20
> >>Well, I don't think its about you gaining anything but about benefiting
> >>your downstream users. By publishing a transparent format they don't
> >>have to worry about, for example, purchasing expensive software to open
> >>and edit your content.
> >
> > Another way to look at it however, is that the 'expensive software'
> > is for most people the default way of doing things. Now, it's not a
> > state of affairs that I'm particularly fond of, but for most people
> > a document in OpenOffice format is actually harder to read than a
> > document in MS Word format. And yet OO is considered more transparent.
>
> True, but OpenOffice doesn't have the =A3100+(?) price-tag attached before
> you can start opening and editing files on it. For most people you are
> correct, this is not an issue. MS Office is bundled with most computers
> these days so most people don't even think if paying the cost.
Most people get a copy 'free' from work, or from a friend or a
newsgroup. I'm actually all for MS enforcing licenses and making
everyone pay them, since currently the 'OO/Linux is free' isn't
actually much of an advantage for the home user.
> You do not necessarily require a transparent editor to create a
> transparent copy. The FDL does not restrict the editor, only the
> Transparent format you publish in.
But the format determines the editor. Try writing decent HTML if
you're using Frontpage or MS Word. You can export as plain text,
but then you loose tables and graphics. Most people aren't going
to want to do this.
My point is, if you have to start arguing with someone over whether
their HTML document is 'transparent' or not (and many people may
have difficulty understanding the concept - not using MS Word format
is easy to understand, but HTML is just HTML, isn't it?) then
something somewhere has gone wrong. If someone has just spent time
writing some good quality add ons for my free game system, I don't
want to quibble over license issues, when the whole idea is to not
have to do this.
Hmm, we're starting to talk about licenses again rather than actual
game content aren't we? Which is partly my point I suppose.
=46rom this last point of view, the BSD license is quite simply the
best since it's so simple.
=2D-=20
Be seeing you, http://www.glendale.org.uk/
Sam. jabber: samuel.penn@xxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
